Fire Monitoring with a Fixed-wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When it comes to wildfire surveillance missions, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) offer a safer alternative over manned aircraft in such dangerous flight conditions. Furthermore, the efficiency of fixed-wing UAVs, as compared to multi-rotors platforms, makes them more desirable for prolonged missions with sustained surveillance. Therefore, while previous research has explored autonomous monitoring of fires with multi-rotor UAVs, this work focuses on developing an approach for fire monitoring with a fixed-wing UAV. In order to autonomously track the fire as it propagates, images of the fire from an on-board IR camera are first processed to extract an edge of the fire front. The proposed algorithm then guides the UAV to fly towards the fire front and track it, by obtaining a reference point located on the extracted fire edge, and using L <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</inf> guidance law to command the aircraft. Furthermore, as the UAV navigates around the fire, a map of the fire is constructed on-board the vehicle, using a fire occupancy grid map to denote the probability of a fire in each cell. Results from two simulations, with fire data obtained from WRF-Fire simulations, demonstrate the ability for the UAV to autonomously track the propagating fire, regardless of its shape or scale, and maintain a map of the fire on-board the vehicle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it